IMF - intervention inevitable

femur61

Just listened to news at 2pm and Newstalk news said our bond market is now effectively closed and IMF intervention is inevitable:eek:

As much as Ihope the unions will be put in their place if full intervention is required then it will be shocking for some people. I have not explored how if effected the UK in '74. Hopefully it will weed all the unfairness in society and the waste in the PS.

Fat_Fingers

Yields on Irish 10-year bonds have reached a new high of 7.62% ahead of a government announcement on plans to cut the deficit.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11693654

manc

hardly surprising until after the budget and this is why the govt said they are not going back to the market until after 1st quarter next year

bleg

Everything's fine so long as you don't talk down the economy. Lehman Brothers etc...

bleg

manc wrote: »

hardly surprising until after the budget and this is why the govt said they are not going back to the market until after 1st quarter next year

That was the NTMA.

Sconsey

I thought they said the bond market was closed to Ireland so we would have to borrow from the EU stabilisation fund, don't think they said IMF.

ashleey

femur61 wrote: »

Just listened to news at 2pm and Newstalk news said our bond market is now effectively closed and IMF intervention is inevitable:eek:

As much as Ihope the unions will be put in their place if full intervention is required then it will be shocking for some people. I have not explored how if effected the UK in '74. Hopefully it will weed all the unfairness in society and the waste in the PS.

They didn't weed out any unfairness there. It did have a go at some waste though.

RichardAnd

femur61 wrote: »

Just listened to news at 2pm and Newstalk news said our bond market is now effectively closed and IMF intervention is inevitable:eek:

As much as Ihope the unions will be put in their place if full intervention is required then it will be shocking for some people. I have not explored how if effected the UK in '74. Hopefully it will weed all the unfairness in society and the waste in the PS.

You clearly have no idea what the IMF do. They don't enforce cuts upon any nations, they give a list of criteria that needs to be met before they will give any aid to the nation in question. How this is acted upon is still the prerogative of the nation as the ever remain sovereign. thus, if the IMF say X billion needs to be cut/raised then how that will be done is up to us. Do you think this will truly result in a fairer society.

ashleey

Sconsey wrote: »

I thought they said the bond market was closed to Ireland so we would have to borrow from the EU stabilisation fund, don't think they said IMF.

The EFSF is a fund of promised cash, some of which comes from the IMF, in order to give the illusion that it is not Joe taxpayer in Germany giving rescue cash to delinquent Greek layabouts among others.

Check the FT for recent discussion of how the actual size of the fund is a fraction of its headline figure, seeing as several 'contributors' will actually be 'users'. No wonder Merkel is busily moving the goalposts before they end up on the hook for a seriously huge bailout. If Ireland capitulates then it is only moments before Portugal is attacked, followed by Spain and even maybe Italy. It's not a pretty picture and hence the extreme pressure to keep Ireland out of the EFSF in the name of the Euro project.

Dorcha

femur61 wrote: »

As much as Ihope the unions will be put in their place .

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

pocketvenus

Dorcha wrote: »

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

This is what unions were established to look after but nowdays they wield too much power and the only interest union heads have is to look after their own €150,000 + salaries.
They honestly could not care less about their members only their subscritpion fees which are dropping due to the amount of people being made redundant.

Dorcha

pocketvenus wrote: »

This is what unions were established to look after but nowdays they wield too much power and the only interest union heads have is to look after their own €150,000 + salaries.
They honestly could not care less about their members only their subscritpion fees which are dropping due to the amount of people being made redundant.

I agree, and they certainly need to be reformed, but without them we would have a wage-slave economy. Even as they exist, they are still a protection for workers.

foundation10

I think it is now time that the unions woke up and smelled the coffee as unless we (gov) can convince the markets that the countrys finances are under control then we greet the IMF. In order to get the finances under control we need to deal with the overinflated public sector.

We can go on all day and talk about the bank bailout. This is a one off cost and does not deal with our current deficit, in order to deal with our deficit public sector numbers and pay need to be drastically reduced immediately no talks to unions nothing, strike or no strike. I am talking about a reduction in numbers of c. 30,000 with a further reduction in the public sector pay bill of at least 10% for the forthcoming year.

It will be a sad day for everyone the day the IMF come especially those public sector dependants. We have sufficient cash reserves to keep us going for some of next year and when these are utlisied along with the pension reserve funds then the IMF are here.

zing zong

Dorcha wrote: »

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

they were set up for this reason in the beginning. thats not what they do now.

they have become corrupt, and are generally a hindrance than a help these days

Tim Robbins

Dorcha wrote: »

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

Yes and now we have a strict labour legislation and a labour court. The Unions only serve as a vested interest under the guise that they are fighting for a fair society.

Gus99

Unions used to have a noble objective in defending workers rights - but such a role has been pretty much replaced/made irrelevant by large amounts of employment legislation (primarily at an EU level). In recent times, it is more about trying to extract every penny possible in return for even the most common-sense reform in the workplace. If James Connolly could see the carry-on from the likes of Begg, McLoone, O'Connor and Doran, he would turn in his grave

zing zong

pocketvenus wrote: »

This is what unions were established to look after but nowdays they wield too much power and the only interest union heads have is to look after their own €150,000 + salaries.
They honestly could not care less about their members only their subscritpion fees which are dropping due to the amount of people being made redundant.

fact!

Tim Robbins

Gus99 wrote: »

Unions used to have a noble objective in defending workers rights - but such a role has been pretty much replaced/made irrelevant by large amounts of employment legislation (primarily at an EU level). In recent times, it is more about trying to extract every penny possible in return for even the most common-sense reform in the workplace. If James Connolly could see the carry-on from the likes of Begg, McLoone, O'Connor and Doran, he would turn in his grave

Agreed. I doubt he'd be fighting to keep an half to cash a cheque.

The origin of unions were to fight explotation now, they are the one exploting and ripping people off.

johnboy_123

To all P.S workers on here saying cut this that and the other first before my wage I garentee you that your wage will be first for the chop only a blind man can how overpaid and overbloated the P.S ...but the guys on the boards here have been shouting the odds and gloating about the CPA

ART6

What the unions do or don't do is wandering from the OP, but in my long career in general management of engineering companies I encouraged unions for the simple reason that I couldn't discuss company business with every individual employee. I saw the union rep as the contact between me and the workforce, and therefore almost a part of the management team. He would relay management decisions to the workforce, and then at a weekly meeting would tell me how they felt about it.

He could present the management view and explain why I felt the actions I proposed were necessary, and he could bring the feedback to the management team. At no time were any of the reps management toadies -- on the contrary some of them were firebrands. But the important thing for me was that the system made the workforce feel that they were part of the organisation and not just hirelings to be treated with contempt.

So, if our order book was a little sparse, the workforce knew. If it was full and thriving, they knew that too. And they knew that the latter gave them job security. It didn't automatically trigger wage demands because they felt part of the company. They knew we would pay them well and treat them well. It's called leadership -- something that is sadly lacking in Ireland nowadays.

The fundamental principle of management is that no manager ever created a profit. What he actually did if he was successful was to provide the resources and the environment for the workforce to do that. So, in my simplistic view, if the IMF, the ECB, or Jesus Christ needs to rescue Ireland then it is the fault of incompetent management---period. No use blaming the unions or the international financial situation or the collapse in property values. You guys ( Mr. Lenihan, Mr. Cowen)are supposed to be the management. The buck stops with you.

Tim Robbins

ART6 wrote: »

What the unions do or don't do is wandering from the OP,

an enlightening post...

hatrickpatrick

I'm not going to claim I know how to solve this problem, but WTF @ people calling for thousands of public sector workers to lose their jobs.

They'll go straight from being paid by the government in wages to being paid by the government in unemployment benefit. Oh yes, that's just what this country needs - MORE unemployment. MORE emigration.

There are things which need to be done in this country to solve our problems, sure. Firing more people and adding to an already disastrous live register tally is NOT one of them.

rumour

ART6 wrote: »

What the unions do or don't do is wandering from the OP, but in my long career in general management of engineering companies I encouraged unions for the simple reason that I couldn't discuss company business with every individual employee. I saw the union rep as the contact between me and the workforce, and therefore almost a part of the management team. He would relay management decisions to the workforce, and then at a weekly meeting would tell me how they felt about it.

He could present the management view and explain why I felt the actions I proposed were necessary, and he could bring the feedback to the management team. At no time were any of the reps management toadies -- on the contrary some of them were firebrands. But the important thing for me was that the system made the workforce feel that they were part of the organisation and not just hirelings to be treated with contempt.

So, if our order book was a little sparse, the workforce knew. If it was full and thriving, they knew that too. And they knew that the latter gave them job security. It didn't automatically trigger wage demands because they felt part of the company. They knew we would pay them well and treat them well. It's called leadership -- something that is sadly lacking in Ireland nowadays.

The fundamental principle of management is that no manager ever created a profit. What he actually did if he was successful was to provide the resources and the environment for the workforce to do that. So, in my simplistic view, if the IMF, the ECB, or Jesus Christ needs to rescue Ireland then it is the fault of incompetent management---period. No use blaming the unions or the international financial situation or the collapse in property values. You guys ( Mr. Lenihan, Mr. Cowen)are supposed to be the management. The buck stops with you.

Sounds like CIE!!!!:pac:

The_Honeybadger

Dorcha wrote: »

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

That's funny,I have been in several well paid non union jobs where I have been treated extremely fairly and I don't live in fairyland.

rumour

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going to claim I know how to solve this problem, but WTF @ people calling for thousands of public sector workers to lose their jobs.

They'll go straight from being paid by the government in wages to being paid by the government in unemployment benefit. Oh yes, that's just what this country needs - MORE unemployment. MORE emigration.

There are things which need to be done in this country to solve our problems, sure. Firing more people and adding to an already disastrous live register tally is NOT one of them.

Your not getting it really unemployment benefit will be cut as well. 33bn income 50bn expenditure. Every little and last thing in the PS does needs to be cut by 40%.
Also we have the option of taxing some say, tax won't work given only approx 900,000 pay tax to get that back everyone needs to pay €1800 a month extra.
Now I may be wrong perhaps the public sector could afford this but the vast vast majority of private sector workers will just turn off the lights and leave. Even €140 extra a month would cause difficulties. Then the cuts have to happen.

The only credible plan we can have to borrow is to demonstrate we don't need to. Catch 22. The game is almost up.

jimmycrackcorm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not going to claim I know how to solve this problem, but WTF @ people calling for thousands of public sector workers to lose their jobs.

They'll go straight from being paid by the government in wages to being paid by the government in unemployment benefit. Oh yes, that's just what this country needs - MORE unemployment. MORE emigration.

There are things which need to be done in this country to solve our problems, sure. Firing more people and adding to an already disastrous live register tally is NOT one of them.

What people are calling for is the firing of public sector staff that are actually surplus to requirements, that means for example scores of middle managers in the HSE. They are also looking for Public service wages to be benchmarked again because that would correct the original benchmarking which is out of kilter. Public service wages went up due to the boom conditions just as house prices did; house prices are correcting but public sector wages aren't.

I'm only using this as inaccurate example but you know that we could actually have twice as many teachers as we do now if they were paid half of what they are but teachers feel they are worth the money they get paid. who determines that now unless it is their own opinion.

dan_d

The question is is it cheaper to have the PS workers on the dole or in a job.
Either way, the tax payer is paying them.

The bond markets are closed to us, however we are not borrowing til at least after Christmas.

Can we stop with the frantic IMF posts? It's a possibility, but then so is being knocked down by a bus. We don't know what's going to happen, but what we do know is that we need to avoid a situation where the IMF do have to come in, and so far we are managing to do that. They will not be the magical fairy godmother that will happily restore bubble land as some people seem to think they will.

There are far more factors at play out there influencing the bond markets. What have we actually done or not done in the last week on the days the percentages rose? Nothing, last I checked. So I highly doubt that it's anything we as a nation are doing right at this point in time to influence the bonds.Therefore it has to be external forces - my eyes are looking at what Angela Merkel has been saying lately....

Spudmonkey

Dorcha wrote: »

Do you even know what the unions are and their reason for being? The unions were formed to protect workers from exploitation by employers. Anyone who thinks Employers would treat their workers fairly without being forced to is living in Fairyland. Traditionally governments, being of the well-off class, have always sided with the employers. In fact, it is fair to say that the only good employer is one who is bound by legislation.

Perhaps in the 19th century when your evil employer resembled burnsie...



I think modern unions have lost their way and now are more interested in short term gains and don't give a toss about their members...

Did anyone hear a mention on the radio about when our interested repayments went over 7% it was a certainty that we would need external assistance?

Dorcha

Spudmonkey wrote: »

Perhaps in the 19th century when your evil employer resembled burnsie...

Let the unions become extinct and you'll soon discover the difference. Fashions change, but human nature doesn't.

Dorcha

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Yes and now we have a strict labour legislation and a labour court. The Unions only serve as a vested interest under the guise that they are fighting for a fair society.

The Labour Court is only there because of the Unions. Your belief in the benevolence of politicians is touching.

Spudmonkey

Dorcha wrote: »

Let the unions become extinct and you'll soon discover the difference. Fashions change, but human nature doesn't.

You've said it!

No union represents me or any of my colleagues, nor would I have one. We are well treated, paid well and we get our work done.

Others (workers) in the same company who are represented by unions I can only describe as being extremely lazy. You will see them standing at reception, waiting to clock out with 15 mins to go and I've heard some of them refer to the job as a "handy number".

No wonder then that I have less faith in some of the employees than the employers, bringing me back to your point above.

I don't agree when its somehow evil for an employer to exploit an employee but grand when its the other way around. Trust is supposed to work both ways and what made companies like Toyota so successful in the 70's and 80's. Modern unions have completely lost their way.

Anyway this is wwaaayyyyyy off-topic!!